ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Identification of abnormal neural language networks by reading "brainprints" in patients with brain tumors.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Alterations in neural language networks are common in patients with brain tumors, yet their nature varies substantially across individuals. By reducing data to group-level averages, conventional analyses fail to capture such heterogeneity, obscuring patient-specific information. Methods: The present study applied a resting-state connectivity fingerprinting approach to characterize language network alterations at the single-subject level, yielding individualized connectivity profiles ("fingerprints"). Fingerprints of 27 right-handed patients with a left-hemisphere brain tumor affecting language-relevant areas were assessed at three time points (preoperative, immediate postoperative and three-month follow-up). Connectivity patterns were compared to a normative reference derived from 30 healthy participants and linked to language performance. Results: Fingerprints remained temporally stable in healthy individuals. In patients, fingerprints revealed distinct, patient-specific deviations from the typical network structure with highly heterogeneous changes over time. Three main findings emerged: (1) patients with language deficits showed greater deviations from the typical fingerprint than those without deficits; (2) significant associations between larger deviations and poorer language performance were confined to the immediate postoperative phase, likely reflecting surgery- or treatment-related influences or differences in the (mal)adaptivity of reorganization over time; (3) in high-grade glioma, exploratory analyses provided preliminary evidence for an adaptive contribution of the contralesional hemisphere immediately after surgery. Conclusions: The findings support connectivity fingerprinting as a promising approach for characterizing patient-specific network patterns and monitoring functional reorganization processes relevant to language function at the single-subject level. With continued methodological refinement, this approach holds potential for contributing to more individualized clinical decision-making within the context of personalized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.